The Kerala Excessive Courtroom lately held that particulars concerning the sickness suffered by the proposer/assured, the earlier therapy administered to him together with hospitalization, and so forth, that are raised as particular queries within the proposal type of the insurance coverage firm are materials information, and within the occasion of any materials suppression or furnishing of false data by the proposer/assured concerning the identical, the Insurance coverage Firm can be entitled to repudiate the coverage.

Justice Sathish Ninan, additional went on to watch that it will not be open for the claimant to contend that another person had stuffed the proposal kind on his behalf, and that the mentioning of the false particulars might thus not be attributed to him.

“Taking it to be that or accepting that the proposal kind was stuffed up not by the proposer however by another individual together with an agent/worker of the defendant, that would solely be construed to have been carried out for and on behalf of the proposer and on his directions. The proposer has signed the proposal kind enterprise that every one the entries made within the proposal are true and proper. He can’t be heard to say that it was another person who stuffed up the proposal kind and that he affixed signature to the proposal kind with out studying or understanding the supplies furnished therein,” the Courtroom noticed.

As per the factual matrix, the husband of the respondent herein had taken an insurance coverage coverage on his personal life, with the previous because the nominee. Pursuant to his dying, when the respondent raised the declare for the quantity, the identical was repudiated by the petitioner/defendants, alleging the furnishing of false data and suppression of fabric information by the assured within the proposal, concerning his well being situation.

The trial courtroom discovered that though the deceased assured individual had not furnished all true information within the proposal, the identical had been stuffed by the agent/worker of the defendant firm and that the assured couldn’t be held chargeable for incorrect information within the proposal. The go well with was thus decreed for the coverage quantity and the advantages thereunder. It’s on being aggrieved by the identical the current enchantment was filed.

The Excessive Courtroom, whereas contemplating the enchantment, famous that there have been two points for consideration: firstly, whether or not the the proposer/assured furnished false data within the proposal for coverage; and secondly, whether or not it will be open for the claimant to contend that the proposal kind was stuffed up not by the proposer/assured however by an worker/agent of the Insurance coverage Firm and therefore mentioning of false data within the proposal can’t be attributed to the proposer.

It famous that in insurance coverage contracts, all materials information inside the information of the proposer are issues to be disclosed whereas submitting the proposal. It noticed that the well being situation of the proposer/assured is a related issue for the insurer to resolve upon whether or not to guarantee on the life or in arriving on the quantum of premium payable.

“The data supplied by a proposer/insured on the time of giving proposal are principally issues inside his information in exclusion to the insurer. It’s on the premise of such particulars that an insurance coverage firm decides to problem a coverage on the life and fixes the premium payable,” it was noticed.

The Courtroom subsequently noticed that by answering ‘No’ to the query within the proposal as as to if the insured had been admitted to a hospital/nursing dwelling for basic check-up of statement, therapy or operation, when he had been admitted in Mom Hospital, Thrissur on complaints of breathlessness/palpitation, recurring chest ache and hypertension, and was underneath the therapy of a Heart specialist, amounted to furnishing of false data.

“The Insurance coverage Firm would repair premium having due regard to the earlier sickness and well being situations of the proposer. Thus, it might solely be concluded that there was materials suppression and furnishing of false data by the proposer/assured whereas availing the insurance coverage coverage. Therefore, the purpose is answered within the affirmative,” the Courtroom discovered.

The Courtroom additionally went on to seek out that the assured couldn’t contend that the proposal kind had been filed by one other when he had affixed his signature to the identical.

“…the competition of the plaintiff disowning the statements within the proposal kind given that it was stuffed up by another person can’t be accepted or countenanced. The proposer is certain by the particulars furnished within the proposal kind. The discovering of the trial courtroom on the contrary is liable to be put aside. Thus, it’s held that the proposer had made a false declaration with the defendant within the proposal kind or had suppressed materials information within the proposal kind and therefore the Insurance coverage Firm isn’t liable underneath the coverage in query and is entitled to repudiate it,” the Courtroom held whereas permitting the enchantment.

The appellants have been represented by Advocate R.S. Kalkura. Advocate C.P. Ravikumar appeared on behalf of the respondent.

Case Title: Zonal Supervisor, Life Insurance coverage Company of India & Ors. v. Rosamma Varkey

Quotation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 242

Click on Right here To Learn/Obtain The Judgment

[embedded content]

Adblock check (Why?)